为什么工程师和临床医生说的不是同一种语言?对此该怎么办?

J. Wyatt
{"title":"为什么工程师和临床医生说的不是同一种语言?对此该怎么办?","authors":"J. Wyatt","doi":"10.1109/CBMS.2013.6627753","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In my experience, presentations at AIME, IEEE or EFMI conferences often describe work by academic engineers using patients as a source of data to explore new modelling methods, and few demonstrate convincing solutions to real world clinical problems. One reason for this is that many doctors make themselves inaccessible, so engineers find it hard to engage them in projects. Since healthcare and medical work are very complex, it takes years of exposure to clinicians and healthcare settings for an engineer to understand real-world patient management problems in sufficient detail to help solve them. This means that sometimes, an engineer might believe they have solved the problem, while to a clinician they have only explored an irrelevant simplification of it. Another explanation is that some engineering academics have had their fingers burned by clinicians, who expect the engineer to carry out an everyday system development task with no research payload. Such engineers will become suspicious of engaging too closely with doctors. Cynics might be less fair, observing that since medical research is well funded, there is a tendency for engineers to apply any novel engineering method to a simplified health data as this is more likely to attract funding than applying their method to, say, linguistics data. However, I believe there is a deeper explanation of why so few bioengineering projects seem to bear clinically digestible fruit: there are fundamental differences in motivation, research focus and research methods between engineering and healthcare research domains, and in the kind of problems they address. For example, the engineering approaches used in the Virtual Physiological Human programme mainly involve data mining and modelling, while clinicians emphasise using psychological, social or other theories to understand and formalise a complex problem first, then use empirical testing to find out whether a theory-based solution works - the evidence based approach. It is clearly unhelpful for engineers to criticise doctors as being poor collaborators in multidisciplinary projects, just as it is for doctors to criticise engineers. So, the aim of this talk is to move beyond name calling to explore common ground constructively and to provoke useful reflection and discussion, both within and across these disciplines. This talk will therefore explore some of the similarities and differences between engineering and healthcare as research disciplines, their respective approaches to problem solving and attempt to build bridges between these two very different worlds. In conclusion, unless we describe the features of this uneasy stand-off between engineers and clinicians, confront it head on and provoke debate, it looks set to continue. This will reduce productivity on both sides and limit the enormous scientific, economic and social benefits that novel, clinically appropriate and collaboratively engineered systems can generate.","PeriodicalId":74567,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings. IEEE International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems","volume":"11 1","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why don't engineers and clinicians talk the same language - And what to do about it?\",\"authors\":\"J. Wyatt\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/CBMS.2013.6627753\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In my experience, presentations at AIME, IEEE or EFMI conferences often describe work by academic engineers using patients as a source of data to explore new modelling methods, and few demonstrate convincing solutions to real world clinical problems. One reason for this is that many doctors make themselves inaccessible, so engineers find it hard to engage them in projects. Since healthcare and medical work are very complex, it takes years of exposure to clinicians and healthcare settings for an engineer to understand real-world patient management problems in sufficient detail to help solve them. This means that sometimes, an engineer might believe they have solved the problem, while to a clinician they have only explored an irrelevant simplification of it. Another explanation is that some engineering academics have had their fingers burned by clinicians, who expect the engineer to carry out an everyday system development task with no research payload. Such engineers will become suspicious of engaging too closely with doctors. Cynics might be less fair, observing that since medical research is well funded, there is a tendency for engineers to apply any novel engineering method to a simplified health data as this is more likely to attract funding than applying their method to, say, linguistics data. However, I believe there is a deeper explanation of why so few bioengineering projects seem to bear clinically digestible fruit: there are fundamental differences in motivation, research focus and research methods between engineering and healthcare research domains, and in the kind of problems they address. For example, the engineering approaches used in the Virtual Physiological Human programme mainly involve data mining and modelling, while clinicians emphasise using psychological, social or other theories to understand and formalise a complex problem first, then use empirical testing to find out whether a theory-based solution works - the evidence based approach. It is clearly unhelpful for engineers to criticise doctors as being poor collaborators in multidisciplinary projects, just as it is for doctors to criticise engineers. So, the aim of this talk is to move beyond name calling to explore common ground constructively and to provoke useful reflection and discussion, both within and across these disciplines. This talk will therefore explore some of the similarities and differences between engineering and healthcare as research disciplines, their respective approaches to problem solving and attempt to build bridges between these two very different worlds. In conclusion, unless we describe the features of this uneasy stand-off between engineers and clinicians, confront it head on and provoke debate, it looks set to continue. This will reduce productivity on both sides and limit the enormous scientific, economic and social benefits that novel, clinically appropriate and collaboratively engineered systems can generate.\",\"PeriodicalId\":74567,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings. IEEE International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"1\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-06-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings. IEEE International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/CBMS.2013.6627753\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings. IEEE International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/CBMS.2013.6627753","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

根据我的经验,在AIME, IEEE或EFMI会议上的演讲经常描述学术工程师使用患者作为数据来源来探索新的建模方法的工作,很少有令人信服的解决方案来解决现实世界的临床问题。其中一个原因是,许多医生不愿与人接触,因此工程师很难让他们参与项目。由于医疗保健和医疗工作非常复杂,工程师需要多年接触临床医生和医疗保健环境,才能充分详细地了解现实世界中的患者管理问题,从而帮助解决这些问题。这意味着,有时候,工程师可能会认为他们已经解决了问题,而对临床医生来说,他们只是探索了一个无关紧要的简化。另一种解释是,一些工程学者已经被临床医生烫伤了,他们希望工程师在没有研究负载的情况下执行日常系统开发任务。这些工程师会对与医生过于密切的接触产生怀疑。愤世嫉俗者可能就不那么公平了,他们观察到,由于医学研究得到了充足的资助,工程师们倾向于将任何新颖的工程方法应用于简化的健康数据,因为这比将他们的方法应用于语言学数据更有可能吸引资金。然而,我相信有一个更深层次的解释,为什么如此少的生物工程项目似乎产生临床可消化的成果:在动机、研究重点和研究方法上,工程和医疗保健研究领域之间存在根本差异,以及它们所解决的问题类型。例如,在虚拟生理人项目中使用的工程方法主要涉及数据挖掘和建模,而临床医生强调首先使用心理学、社会或其他理论来理解和形式化一个复杂的问题,然后使用经验测试来找出基于理论的解决方案是否有效——基于证据的方法。工程师批评医生在多学科项目中合作不佳显然是无益的,就像医生批评工程师一样。所以,这次演讲的目的是超越谩骂,建设性地探索共同点,并在这些学科内部和学科之间引发有益的反思和讨论。因此,本讲座将探讨工程和医疗保健作为研究学科之间的一些异同,他们各自解决问题的方法,并试图在这两个截然不同的世界之间建立桥梁。总之,除非我们描述工程师和临床医生之间这种令人不安的对峙的特点,正面面对它并引发辩论,否则这种对峙似乎将继续下去。这将降低双方的生产力,并限制新颖的、临床适用的和协作设计的系统所能产生的巨大的科学、经济和社会效益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Why don't engineers and clinicians talk the same language - And what to do about it?
In my experience, presentations at AIME, IEEE or EFMI conferences often describe work by academic engineers using patients as a source of data to explore new modelling methods, and few demonstrate convincing solutions to real world clinical problems. One reason for this is that many doctors make themselves inaccessible, so engineers find it hard to engage them in projects. Since healthcare and medical work are very complex, it takes years of exposure to clinicians and healthcare settings for an engineer to understand real-world patient management problems in sufficient detail to help solve them. This means that sometimes, an engineer might believe they have solved the problem, while to a clinician they have only explored an irrelevant simplification of it. Another explanation is that some engineering academics have had their fingers burned by clinicians, who expect the engineer to carry out an everyday system development task with no research payload. Such engineers will become suspicious of engaging too closely with doctors. Cynics might be less fair, observing that since medical research is well funded, there is a tendency for engineers to apply any novel engineering method to a simplified health data as this is more likely to attract funding than applying their method to, say, linguistics data. However, I believe there is a deeper explanation of why so few bioengineering projects seem to bear clinically digestible fruit: there are fundamental differences in motivation, research focus and research methods between engineering and healthcare research domains, and in the kind of problems they address. For example, the engineering approaches used in the Virtual Physiological Human programme mainly involve data mining and modelling, while clinicians emphasise using psychological, social or other theories to understand and formalise a complex problem first, then use empirical testing to find out whether a theory-based solution works - the evidence based approach. It is clearly unhelpful for engineers to criticise doctors as being poor collaborators in multidisciplinary projects, just as it is for doctors to criticise engineers. So, the aim of this talk is to move beyond name calling to explore common ground constructively and to provoke useful reflection and discussion, both within and across these disciplines. This talk will therefore explore some of the similarities and differences between engineering and healthcare as research disciplines, their respective approaches to problem solving and attempt to build bridges between these two very different worlds. In conclusion, unless we describe the features of this uneasy stand-off between engineers and clinicians, confront it head on and provoke debate, it looks set to continue. This will reduce productivity on both sides and limit the enormous scientific, economic and social benefits that novel, clinically appropriate and collaboratively engineered systems can generate.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信